Re: [C++ Patch] PR 58888

2013-10-29 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 58888

2013-10-29 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 10/28/2013 07:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: My question is, why do we need that whole block for massaging VAR_DECL initializers? That all ought to be handled properly by cp_finish_decl. Does removing everything after else if (!VAR_P (value)) gcc_unreachable (); work? In fact, it works

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 58888

2013-10-28 Thread Jason Merrill
My question is, why do we need that whole block for massaging VAR_DECL initializers? That all ought to be handled properly by cp_finish_decl. Does removing everything after else if (!VAR_P (value)) gcc_unreachable (); work? Jason

[C++ Patch] PR 58888

2013-10-28 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, here we reject the declaration of b with the invalid use of ‘auto’ error. The reason is that, at the beginning of grokfield, init != NULL_TREE, processing_template_decl is false (in fact, a "templatized" version of the testcase is accepted) and we get to: if (TREE_CODE (init) == CONSTRUC